Reporting from the informal meeting between EU heads of state and government on 23-24 April

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The European Council met on Thursday and Friday for an informal EU summit in Cyprus. The big question for the meeting was, naturally, the situation in the Middle East and the various economic consequences, not least those linked to higher energy prices, which we now see all around the world – in Europe but also here in Sweden.

The meeting was also characterized by the fact that it was the first EU summit in 16 years without Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in the room. He was therefore not present at his last EU summit. This was noticeable both in how the discussions sounded on site and in the decisions that could be made before the meeting, which were important for Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy participated on-site at the beginning of the meeting and gave his view on the situation, both the situation at the front and the broader strategic context so far into the fifth year of war. Russia doesn't even pretend to want peace anymore, but rather shamelessly procrastinates most things. Ukraine continues to defend itself. I usually say that Ukraine is not currently winning the war, but Ukraine is also not losing the war.

It is obvious that the USA is increasingly letting Ukraine become an issue for us in Europe, not least when it comes to military and economic support. That we in Europe take our responsibility is important, both for ourselves and our security and for Ukraine's security.

Therefore, it was gratifying that we finally, after long blockages from Hungary and Slovakia, could make the final political decisions to push through the large loan of 90 billion euro and the 20th sanctions package against Russia. This will ensure that Ukraine has the absolutely necessary resources required to be able to defend itself militarily and maintain a functioning civil society. At the same time, Europe continues to strike at the Russian economy, not least against the shadow fleet.

The work must now continue with the perseverance that these funds create the conditions for. It is about mobilizing further support packages to Ukraine and further sanction packages against Russia and about Ukraine being able to take steps forward in its EU accession. It is precisely regarding the EU accession that we must move forward now that Hungary no longer blocks every possibility for progress. Not least, we ourselves are pushing to be able to open cluster 1, as it is called, as quickly as possible so that the real membership negotiations can begin.

The really big discussion revolved primarily around the economic consequences for the EU of the war in the Middle East. The EU Commission had just before the meeting presented a proposal for a political toolbox, as it is called in EU-speak, with various good proposals and recommendations for how we within the EU can, in the short and long term, manage very volatile and high energy prices.

The Swedish government shares the Commission's assessment of the situation in many areas and of which measures are reasonable and proportionate here and now. Several other Member States had, prior to the meeting, requested significantly more far-reaching measures, which might provide some Member States with small advantages in the short term but would be both climatically and economically dangerous in the long term – especially for a country like Sweden, where we and our companies have invested heavily in the long-term credibility of the green transition.

This applies most clearly to the EU Emissions Trading System, ETS. Here, the Swedish voice is very clear. We are not going to tear up the European climate legislation in order to instead prolong a continued dependence on fossil fuels. On the contrary, all of Europe must take responsibility for building more predictable, fossil-free energy production here in Europe and in that way minimize both volatility, i.e., the rises and falls in energy prices, and our dependence on unstable and sometimes directly dangerous countries and regions.

Even in the important issue that Swedish bottleneck revenues should not be spent in other countries, Sweden has received a good response, both from the Commission and from other Member States. This concerns the fundamental question that the money should not be allowed to leave Sweden and be used to build networks in other countries, but also the question that we ourselves want these revenues to be able to be used in as flexible a way as possible. In that issue, negotiations continue, and nothing is settled until everything is settled. But we ourselves know best what is needed and should therefore to a greater extent be allowed to decide what these monies are used for.

In the toolbox presented last week, the commission repeated what we pushed through at the European Council in March, namely a clear wording on the flexible use of national bottleneck revenues – so far, so good. This negotiation is therefore not over yet, and the details remain to be seen. The issue will therefore return at a Council of Ministers meeting at the end of June, and the government continues to intensively push Sweden's position.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge Swedish parties to speak with their European party colleagues and contribute to this work. Team Sweden has an important legislative task ahead of it.

Parallelly, Mr. Speaker, with concern for the economic consequences, there is a palpable concern for the difficult humanitarian and security situation in the entire Middle East. The EU is, as everyone knows, not a central power factor in issues of war and peace in the Middle East. But the EU must continue to constitute a voice for de-escalation, stability, and free passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Let us also not lose focus on the civilian suffering that we still see all around the region. Since the beginning of the war, the Government has contributed over 2 billion kronor to humanitarian aid in Gaza. In 2025, Sweden was the largest bilateral donor to Gaza of all EU countries. We have recently put forward two humanitarian aid packages totaling 135 million kronor to Lebanon due to the very difficult humanitarian situation there. In a time when many, both in and outside Sweden, mostly talk about everything that should be done, we do things that have real significance.

The EU's long-term budget, abbreviated as MFF, was also discussed, and the discussion followed very established and expected patterns.

Together with quite a few like-minded people, I underlined the completely unreasonable nature of a budget proposal that is so large and so expensive. When many member states have pressured own budgets, the EU must also prioritize more harshly than ever before.

Some countries argue on the contrary that it is precisely because of the current situation and all the new challenges that the EU's budget must grow. Quite few oppose an increased focus on security, migration, climate, and competitiveness, but ever more are safeguarding all the traditional areas of expenditure, such as cohesion policy and agricultural policy.

The positions perhaps do not entirely surprisingly follow relatively accurately the different national economic interests, even if often disguised as public interests.

To avoid fee increases, some countries want to accept the Commission's proposal to create new sources of revenue for the EU budget, such as those called new own resources. From a Swedish perspective, we are, as is well known, quite skeptical of this. We want tax policy to remain national. We are also [skeptical] because there is no such thing as free money. Expenditures taken from the EU budget are made at the expense of national budgets or at the expense of companies or consumers. To believe that the EU can in some magical way conjure up entirely new money is a recurring – but also a recurring bad – spinal reflex among a few too many member states.

We in Sweden are, however, far from alone in our stricter view. Germany, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland were perhaps the countries that most clearly expressed similar positions to Sweden. There will be many tough meetings before the budget can be finalized; at the earliest at the turn of the year is my assessment.

That Sweden this time has a majority government that can make decisions on Sweden's behalf is important when we are to make decisions on the next EU budget – not like last time, when the Social Democratic government lacked control over its own government base. Stefan Löfven and his Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson had instead to appeal to the Moderaterna to get a majority in Sweden's Riksdag.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I conclude the report from the meeting.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! I want to begin with the energy crisis.

One of the most important parts for Sweden is the so-called bottleneck revenues. It concerns the 85 billion that Swedish electricity customers have already paid, which is now accumulating with Vattenfall. Sweden must be able to use these funds for Swedish households, for electricity support and for lower electricity bills, so that the funds can be retained by Sweden and used flexibly.

Before the EU summit on Wednesday morning, the Prime Minister said: The bottleneck revenues are thus secured for Sweden. The flexibility is not yet secured. A first indication will be received, I believe, at 12 o'clock today, when the so-called toolbox is presented. These wonderful expressions.

In the Commission's toolbox for handling the energy crisis, the toolbox, which was presented at 12:00, there was no such indication at all. There was nothing about using bottleneck revenues flexibly for electricity support for Swedish electricity consumers, and there was also nothing about the exception that Sweden had but which Kristersson neglected to extend during the Swedish presidency. There was also nothing about an increased possibility to use the money, which Kristersson wants to claim and has actually promised the Swedish people. Nothing was included.

Did the Prime Minister, only hours before, really have no idea what the commission would present in its toolbox to handle the energy crisis – the one that Kristersson and other heads of state and government had ordered?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The bottleneck revenues for Sweden are secured. They were secured already at the summit in March. That is no longer the question. The question now is about exactly what degree of flexibility Sweden gets when it comes to using the bottleneck revenues.

Quite a few of us thought that the level of detail in the so-called toolbox would be much greater when it was presented. Now it was very broad and schematic in most areas. But the flexibility is there, and it has also been confirmed. The question is only exactly how it will look. Therefore, I have said time and again that nothing is finished until everything is finished. The next time this will be negotiated is probably at the energy ministers' council, which I believe takes place at the beginning of June.

The fact remains: We have guaranteed the revenues to Sweden. Others will not seize Swedish money. But the question of to what extent we ourselves may use the money as we wish has not yet been resolved. Therefore, it is appropriate if all parties help each other in pointing out to colleagues in the EU system that we in Sweden want to maximize the flexibility for our own money.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would still like to start by saying that one of the most important messages during last week concerned precisely the support for Ukraine and the fact that, without Orbán, one can actually secure the money that the EU had already promised, and one could also get new sanctions against Russia in place.

But let me return to the energy crisis. ”A Swedish victory,” Kristersson trumpeted already after the last EU summit. And now Kristersson stands here and says that we don't really know how it will turn out with the flexibility. He says that he thought something would come just hours before, but nothing came.

I can tell the Prime Minister that Sofie Eriksson, who is a Social Democratic Member of the European Parliament, has secured wording in the European Parliament that actually establishes that Sweden shall be allowed to use the bottleneck revenues flexibly in the way that Sweden desires. We are, therefore, doing the work.

But how is Ulf Kristersson going to secure the flexibility? He has promised that. Will the Swedes ever get their electricity money?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This bickering is almost entertaining. Sometimes one gets the feeling that you want it to fail and that you wish for nothing more than for it to go to ruin. It is truly fascinating.

I said that we have secured the bottleneck revenues for Sweden. That is absolutely true. I also said then that the flexibility is not yet resolved. We want maximum flexibility, in a way that has not existed before, to use the money as we want. Once we had an exception when it came to repaying them after expensive electricity bills. Now we want new flexibility. That question remains. I have not said more and have not said less.

But stop pretending that you haven't understood what I have said!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! This was an informal meeting. There are no council conclusions to review. There is, however, a great deal of writing in the newspapers.

Most focus has been on Hungary's new government and that the money for Ukraine is secured. It is positive, and there is strong support for that in this parliament.

At the same time, the challenges regarding Hungary remain because even the new government there, as I understand it, plans to continue to be dependent on Russian energy. That means there is a risk that the problems will continue to some extent. I would not be surprised if we have to return to the problems regarding Hungary and Russian energy in the future as well.

Mr. Speaker! This issue regarding the budget and the MFF is an extremely prioritized issue for the Sweden Democrats. We think the government has a good Swedish position. It is also positive, – if I interpret the Prime Minister correctly – that it is now a slightly larger circle of countries that, together with Sweden, are pushing in a frugal direction. Does this have to do with those countries having changed their position, or is it simply that the proposal for the new budget has moved in a more radical direction and that one has thereby received a bit more support?

Mr. Speaker! There is clearly a great focus on energy issues at the moment. I do not know if the Prime Minister can elaborate a bit on what types of short-term measures have been presented and that he envisions will be possible for Sweden to utilize. One question is: Will it be possible for Sweden to lower the diesel tax, so that it becomes lower than the legal level that exists today?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite true that the dependence on Russian oil – that is, formally speaking, legal Russian oil – continues to be too great in a number of countries. We will probably see that in the future as well. It is bad in many different ways, but it is naturally less bad when it no longer leads to deadlocks against Ukraine.

It is a complex situation ahead of this budget. It is, as I said, a fairly large number of countries that have the common position that it is an all-too-large budget. It was described quite vividly and with rather ultimate expressions – everything from the German Constitutional Court to detailed descriptions of how large the net expenditure increase would be for a number of countries – in a way that the others could not misunderstand. There is a group of countries.

Another group of countries is almost mostly focused on guarding what they already have, that is to say, a lot of money for agricultural policy and cohesion policy. It happens to coincide with the fact that these are countries that often are not net contributors.

Since then, we have a number of countries that think it is very important to shift the focus. It is about more money to protect the external border, more money for defense industry cooperation, more money for security issues and more money for the climate transition. These are, therefore, genuinely common European issues that countries cannot solve themselves. If one is to shift the focus, it requires more money there and less money in other places, and then new deadlocks are created.

Then there are countries that, for completely different reasons, want there to be new own resources. Some want it for purely pragmatic reasons. They do not have money themselves and believe that if they pick up new European money, they at least avoid getting an increased price tag regarding their own payment. Others want this for somewhat more principled reasons. A country like France does not hide that one really wants more common European [resources] and sees an advantage in that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the development of how the budget negotiations look!

The Prime Minister did not have time to answer the question regarding the diesel tax, so I will let the Prime Minister continue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Diesel taxes are one of these things. Now we have submitted a special request to lower it, and we have not yet received an answer to that. Then one can say that it lies very close to the question of flexibility in general.

The Commission uses the three Ts – timely, temporary and targeted. On good grounds, the Commission is afraid of long-term state subsidies and distortion of markets, including that countries that already have poor public finances will erode them further. But that the Commission will come with flexibilities and that countries will then be allowed to step in and support households – that is, in practice, what it is about – is quite obvious. The question is how far-reaching and how long-lasting they will be. That remains to be seen.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the account!

There were many issues on the agenda this time, but I intend to stick to the Middle East. We see that the negotiations between the USA and Iran seem to be moving very slowly. The Prime Minister mentioned that the EU is pushing, but at the same time, the relationship between President Trump and Europe's leaders is not particularly good at the moment. Can the EU and Europe's leaders do anything to accelerate a peace process that leads to a lasting peace?

Despite the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the attacks against Gaza continue. Gaza lies in ruins, and no reconstruction has started. Gaza's civil defense estimates that there are still over 8,000 people buried under the rubble.

Reports are coming in that Israel is still blocking humanitarian transports and is now also restricting access to water. At the same time, both the government and the European Council refuse to use the leverage that exists, such as freezing the association agreement. The agreement covers, among other things, trade and gives Israel free access to European research funds within Horizon Europe. Was that question raised in the council this time?

I think it is good that Sweden has for some time been driving the issue of measures against extremist settlers and ministers, even though this should apply to all illegal settlers and not just the extremist ones. The latest proposal that tariffs should be introduced on goods from occupied territory is good, but it is definitely not enough. All trade with goods produced on occupied territory must be stopped completely.

My question to the Prime Minister is: How is the government's proposal received in the European Council, and can the Council agree on more powerful measures to obtain humanitarian access to Gaza and begin rebuilding Gaza?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The simple answer is probably: no. The EU shows no new signs of being able to reach an agreement on new issues. I believe I have had about a dozen reports in this circle in approximately the same position.

We have agreement on condemning abuses. We have agreement on de-escalation. We have agreement on the importance of humanitarian access and such things. But there is no fundamental European agreement on the underlying conflicts in the Middle East. Right now, we can of course also agree on how bad it is with all the economic ripple effects that this has far beyond Gaza – now we are talking about the entire war.

We can agree on all of this, and therefore the most focus is placed on how we handle things in a purely practical sense, for example, economic contributions.

There is also an important question which is admittedly not an EU issue but which many EU countries are involved in: What could Europe's countries do after the hostilities to secure free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, for example?

All of this is important. But there is simply no new fundamental agreement when it comes to the view on the Middle East, and I believe that is quite well known. This does not prevent people from discussing and countries taking impressions of one another and so on. But as I said in my introduction: the EU is not a major power factor when it comes to the overall Middle East policy.

On the other hand, individual countries – to varying degrees – have very much contact with different countries in the region. France and Lebanon are an obvious example. Many have bilateral contacts, even demanding ones, with Israel. We have had a significantly increased contact with the Gulf states since a number of years back. So, a lot of influence work is taking place, but there is no new common European position.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! However, I did not receive a proper answer on how this matter regarding tariffs is being received.

It is good that countries are getting involved, but I wish that more countries could get involved and perhaps not just to get the oil flowing freely. It is also about people's lives and about how people are faring in these countries.

When we in the opposition have raised the issue of the association agreement, we have received an answer from the majority: No, there is no point in bringing it up, because we will not achieve consensus. In that case, I want to convey how important it is to continue working for what one believes in, because in the end, one might succeed in moving forward.

I have a short question about the long-term budget: Does the Prime Minister believe that an agreement will be reached in time or will it be like last time – a meeting in the European Council that cannot end until agreement has been reached?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member asked an extraordinarily good question. I believe that the President of the European Council, António Costa, half-jokingly and half-seriously pointed out that there is supposed to be a meeting of the European Council around December 17, and that we then have the time from December 17 until the evening of December 23 to resolve the issue if it is not resolved earlier.

Nothing suggests that this will be easy. Nothing suggests that it will be resolved until it must be resolved. The vast majority seem to agree that one gains nothing by pushing this beyond the turn of the year.

My best guess right now is that we will handle this before the turn of the year, and then we have the entire year of 2027 for everything before it starts to apply in 2028. But it is absolutely no promise, and I believe that all countries will hold quite firmly to their positions until they are forced to find compromises.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking the Prime Minister and the rest of the government for a good job regarding the support for Ukraine. It is also generally a good cooperation in security matters. It is crucial for EU and Swedish security that we actually continue in this direction. It is wonderful that we can now send 90 billion to Ukraine when the far-right's favorite, Orbán, has been voted out – very pleasing. We know that Sweden has pushed hard in these issues, so thank you for that work!

We also have, in many ways, a worrying security situation around the Strait of Hormuz, something that several have touched upon here today. As the Council President António Costa pointed out, there is only one way away from the dependence on these rogue states, and that is to expand fossil-free energy production in Europe. I agree with that, and I perceive that the Prime Minister does as well.

We see, however, that the government has ensured that, for example, in practice the sale of electric cars has been reduced, something that could otherwise take us away from fossil dependency. We have in practice put a stop to all energy expansion, and the Moderaterna stopped Energy Minister Busch's opportunity for an energy agreement here in Sweden, something that could contribute to Europe getting out of fossil dependency. Sweden is one of the large batteries in Europe, we can say, and our great German brother nation is somewhat too dependent on Sweden, since the Greens shut down all nuclear power there.

The reality is that Sweden must have actual energy production in place if it is to make a difference. It is not enough with papers, fine words, and symbolic shovel turns. When can we expect an energy agreement? When will the Prime Minister ensure that it happens so that we can truly begin to expand energy here in Sweden and contribute to security and independence from rogue states here in Europe?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One of the conclusions from the European Council and the Commission was that Europe must dramatically expand its own fossil-free energy production. This has not been done so far. One has relied far too much on fossil fuels, first from Russia, then from the Gulf and many other places.

The new thing, and I know you do not want to see it, is that the EU Commission also explicitly points to nuclear power. It has been a taboo in Europe, as many countries have had blockades against nuclear power. Nowadays, fewer and fewer countries have that, because it is realized that there is no alternative. Increased pragmatism, increased security policy awareness, and increased climate policy awareness mean that it must be about a combination of nuclear power and renewables if Europe is to become independent of fossil gas and oil and have its own energy production capacity. It looks a bit different in different countries. There are countries that have better conditions for hydropower and quite obviously countries that have better conditions for solar power.

There are, therefore, different interests, but a growing interest in nuclear power in Europe. That is the uniquely new thing, and there Sweden is now at the forefront. As is known, in December we made a decision with an 80 percent majority in Sweden's Riksdag to launch a new nuclear power program in Sweden. So we are also making ourselves independent in Sweden.

Then I just want to mention that electric car sales are increasing in Sweden. They are not decreasing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! We see, in any case, that the development of electric car sales is significantly different in Sweden compared to in our neighboring countries.

My party has no problem seeing nuclear power in all of this. I also hope that the Prime Minister has noted that we are happy to discuss these issues and have opened up for that in our motions as well. So, it is not a matter of me not wanting to see nuclear power.

I could mention one thing that I do not want to see, and that is, for example, the deportations of our teenagers to Iran. I also do not want to see deep conversations with the Taliban, which the government is now opening up to, while the ICC and the USA want to arrest their ministers.

I also wonder if there was any discussion about return hubs. The government is split because the Liberals have the same position as the Center Party – that these hubs should be in Europe – while the Moderates and Christian Democrats want them to be in, for example, North Africa. We believe that those seeking asylum in Europe should be treated in Europe.

What does the split that we saw in the European Parliament between the government parties look like? What is the government's position heading into the trilogue that is now to come?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Migration issues were not on the agenda at all at this European summit. They are permanently important, and I have returned to the point quite many times that Sweden, together with Denmark, Italy, and a growing number of countries, has pushed for everything from better protection of the external border and ensuring that cooperation with transit and countries of origin works better to better opportunities to deport people who have committed crimes, where conventions today can stand in the way.

I think all of this works perfectly. Then it is quite obvious that more remains to be done.

An important decision at the European Council last time was that the European Council explicitly stated that a new 2015 is not relevant. We will not end up in the same situation once again. It is a quite clear signal when it is very messy in the world around us.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Prime Minister! I want to start by giving praise for the work regarding Ukraine but also for the fact that the Prime Minister defends the ETS and that climate work.

However, there are several parts that we from Miljöpartiet would have liked to see more focus on regarding energy security and rising fossil prices, which were a large part of the informal meeting.

The Prime Minister has just himself warned of vulnerabilities in the energy supply and how these international crises can quickly hit Swedish households and companies. This shows a fundamental problem, namely that both Sweden and Europe continue to be deeply dependent on fossil fuels. It is of course not only a major climate problem, but it also ultimately becomes a security risk. It also shows that the entire world economy is deeply fossil-doped.

Then it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we do not get stuck in treating symptoms but also address the root causes, which in this case is about phasing out the fossil and making us more independent and resilient.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Did Sweden and the Prime Minister act at this informal EU meeting to highlight the need for a clear timetable, where the phasing out of fossil fuels is scheduled so that more can be invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Absolutely, and I also said that an important conclusion from the commission is to make Europe independent of fossil energy, primarily from dangerous places but in the long run from all places.

That is exactly what the Swedish experience shows. When we expanded nuclear power after hydropower, we obtained an almost entirely fossil-free electricity system in Sweden. It is so self-evident for us that we do not realize the extent of it.

We just had a press briefing to look at the overall energy situation right now. There, we showed a graph of different countries, where one axis is government debt levels, that is, the room for maneuver to act if things go wrong, and the other axis is the degree of fossil dependency in the energy mix.

Sweden is located at the bottom left corner, where one should be – low dependence on oil and gas in the energy mix, low public debt. Italy is unfortunately in the upper right corner – very high fossil dependence, very high public debt.

The conclusion is banal: Build fossil-free energy! I have no objection to the fact that it is always spelled renewable and wind power in the Green Party's world. I have no problem with this, but it is also spelled nuclear power. Without nuclear power, more weather-dependent power will not fit, so there is no contradiction between them.

More and more countries are joining the nuclear alliance that we, France and others are driving. In most countries, the political drama is completely gone, but we have lost a lot of years. It takes time to transition the entire energy system.

We have now moved from Russian gas and oil to other gas and oil. It is not better for the climate but slightly less impactful on security. That journey must continue all the way forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can be pleased that we nevertheless share some kind of direction regarding phasing out the fossil. However, regarding the fact that it takes time, the shortest construction time for a nuclear power plant in the Western world is 19.5 years. It is therefore nothing we can respond to here and now, when the energy crisis is actually ongoing. At the same time, we must be aware that the government has said no to 13 larger wind farms, which would correspond to several reactors and which could have been built in much shorter time. But I am still pleased with the direction.

The specific question I want to ask the Prime Minister is whether Sweden will act to gather support to phase out the fossil subsidies that there are plenty of in the long-term budget that Europe has. The Commission has calculated that around 100 billion euros go to fossil subsidies every year. We must get rid of that. I wonder if the government will drive this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We will return to the long-term budget many times. I have no exact perceptions regarding that matter right now. Focus has been placed on the central interest of not increasing the costs for the Swedish part.

Here and now, there is no doubt that a number of government interventions probably need to be made because one cannot replace the fossil with anything else right now. It would only erode the economy of people and companies and further lower competitiveness. There is no doubt that in the short term, things must be done, but the short term must be paired with long-term interventions that build an independent energy system in Europe.

It is an almost unparalleled paradox that despite the fact that we have done so much right in Sweden for a long time, we are once again affected by gas prices in Europe. They produce electricity from gas, which hits southern Sweden because Germany does not have a stable electricity production and we have decommissioned nuclear power in southern Sweden. It is a really bad combination.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report!

I and the Vice-Chair of the EU Committee were in Moldova a few weeks ago to listen to their ambitions to become members of the European Union. Similar discussions have been held many times with Ukraine. After this visit, I did something that is perhaps among the hardest things I have ever done. It was trying to explain to my six-year-old son what I do at my job.

I tried to explain why I had been in Moldova, what I did there, and why the country does not directly become a member of the European Union. It was what we can call a challenge. His reaction was: "Can't Ulf tell them?" He has understood that the Prime Minister is the one who decides. Now the challenges in the European Union are perhaps a bit larger than that. We all know that Viktor Orbán has been a major roadblock, especially when it comes to Ukraine's but also other countries' membership in the European Union.

At the committee's last meeting, I asked whether questions have started to emerge from other countries now that the immediate blockade from Viktor Orbán is no longer in place. Have other countries started to air doubts or questioning? I intended to follow up on that question today. It could possibly help me explain to my son why Ukraine is not yet members of the European Union and why they do not enjoy the community but also the common protection and the stability that this entails.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have also tried. I was at the Kyiv School of Economics a couple of years ago and gave a guest lecture for students studying political science, economics, and public policy. They naturally asked the question: "How slowly can it go with our membership negotiations?" I tried to explain what the regulatory framework looks like but also the different countries' different perceptions. In the end, I had to say that one day when you are the EU's 28th member state, the 29th country will knock on the door. Then you will have to decide if they live up to all the criteria that you consider to be in the union's common interest. And I am not one hundred percent sure that you will immediately say yes then. They actually agreed with that.

These are difficult things. It is quite obvious that the worst problem has now been removed, and that is just good. Then I do not think we should expect a dramatic Hungarian change in the view on membership, that is to say on the process. Even we maintain a basic perception that one must live up to the EU's requirements to become a member. Here we do not take a lot of other considerations. It is important.

Simultaneously, discussions are ongoing about whether this can be accelerated in different ways. Germany has taken the initiative to discuss a faster way forward and test it with a few different countries. No one, so to speak, came out from behind the wardrobe and said: "We are against it." But the rather obvious objections are heard. One obvious objection is how fast it actually goes with anti-corruption and such things. Another objection is how we are to handle all the states in the Western Balkans if we are to have a faster track for Ukraine. Some countries are at least as committed to the Western Balkans as to Ukraine. A third objection comes from those countries that know they may even have to hold a referendum on a result of membership negotiations.

I see quite a few obstacles in the way. They also see President Zelenskyy, so he was very reasonable in the matter. But there is a high expectation, and we will do our best to meet it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the briefing!

That was roughly what one could suspect. When one left the very binary "no" from Viktor Orbán and began to delve into the details, life became, as always, somewhat more complicated. But a first step in this is still to begin opening clusters. Can the Prime Minister read from these nuances whether there is any immediate resistance to starting to open clusters? Are questions rather being raised regarding the completion and closing of chapters at a later stage, or are there already now questions regarding whether one is ready to open clusters with Ukraine?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am being somewhat cautious because we do not even have a new Hungarian government in place. It is said that it will be installed on May 15. We will probably get a first indication then of how keen they are to really show that a new line is in place there, but we naturally have hopes of opening cluster one. There is no doubt about that matter. We will probably have to return, perhaps in June. By then, I think we will have a better picture, because the commission will want to push hard. That there is strong support from many countries to use the momentum after Hungary, I think is quite obvious.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Prime Minister for the report!

There were undoubtedly many difficult and important issues discussed, and it is pleasing and important that the support for Ukraine is arriving and moving forward now, through both the large loan package and the sanctions against Russia.

The second thing I intended to mention concerns the energy issue. As was mentioned in the report, both Sweden's and the rest of the world's energy prices have been affected by the war in Iran. It also shows the dependency that exists on various countries which in many ways are unpredictable and difficult to deal with. Therefore, it is important, as the Prime Minister explained, that we focus more on creating a more fossil-free production within the union and on the work that Sweden has done so that nuclear power becomes part of the energy mix. I believe that it is crucial for building a domestic fossil-free production in the long term.

Regarding the bottleneck revenues, we know that Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch was hit very hard at the ministerial meeting so that the Swedish revenues should stay in Sweden – something that the council meeting then also ensured. The question is then how they are to be used. This is an important victory for the Swedish government.

In my first post, I intended to ask the following question: Was there a discussion about long-term energy production and how to ensure an independent production of one's own where nuclear power is also an important part of the mix?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Absolutely, it was discussed quite extensively. I believe I mentioned it.

Deciding which energy mix one wants to have remains, however, a national competence, for quite obvious reasons. After all, different countries have different natural conditions. We have hydropower as a unique capability of ours, something that not all countries have. Nuclear power, in principle, everyone can have if they want to. Different countries have different conditions, above all for solar and to some extent also for wind.

Previously, there was an almost built-in resistance to nuclear power. Even things such as it should not be seen as a sustainable investment and such nonsense have been completely removed. Now there is a very broad acceptance for this, which is the new thing. But it remains, as said, a national competence.

Let me also say a word about what we are seeing now, namely a global disruption that is truly large. But we must not confuse things. The global disruption is getting through, but not at all with full impact to all countries. We see, primarily, large Asian disruptions, because most of the oil and natural gas goes to various Asian markets. There are large disruptions there.

We also have a disruption in Europe. It is larger for natural reasons in the countries that have a greater energy mix dependence on oil and gas. If one also has a poor economy, it becomes extra painful when the increased prices hit throughout the entire energy production. Right now, it hits to a much lesser extent in Sweden, but it is quite obviously visible in the prices.

At the press briefing a short while ago, we showed that there is an early warning issued for aviation fuel. There, we have a higher import share than for, for example, gasoline. It is an early warning, which absolutely does not mean rationing. But it was mentioned that one needs to be attentive to the situation in the place where one is going to fly.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer!

In my second point, I intended to focus on the humanitarian situation in the Middle East, something that the Prime Minister also took up. The civilian population has been hit very hard there. The humanitarian needs are very great. A more active engagement from a European context is important, both to alleviate the great distress and to help improve the situation.

Lebanon was specifically mentioned. An important point there is that Sweden, with two support packages totaling 135 million, has provided support for the humanitarian situation. But the question is: Is there a large and important interest from a broader European level to focus on the humanitarian situation for the civilian population in the Middle East?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Different European countries clearly have different levels of proximity to different countries in the Middle East. We have known this for a long time, and there is nothing strange in this. These ties are probably stronger than the common European ties.

This is not a European weakness, but there is also a reluctance among many EU countries to hand over policy into common hands. We have long belonged to those countries that have been most forward-looking for a more common foreign and geopolitical power but not common tax policy. Other countries think exactly the opposite: Do not touch our unique foreign policy capability, but feel free to address tax jointly! There are therefore very different views on this.

As I said in my introduction, quite a lot is said about the needs, but too little is paid for. It has concerned Ukraine, and it also concerns the Middle East now. I think Sweden has set a very good example, which is also noted in these contexts.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the account and the answers so far!

It is always somewhat of a challenge to get this far down the speaking list and try to be a bit innovative.

Regardless of what everyone else has said, I also, of course, want to mention Hungary. It is incredibly pleasing that Orbán is no longer in the game, not least for Hungary itself and the Hungarian people, but also for the EU. This applies perhaps especially to the support for Ukraine.

It is incredibly gratifying to hear what the Prime Minister says about steps now being taken in the right direction – or that there are at least such tendencies – for Ukrainian EU membership.

It would be interesting to hear the Prime Minister say something about how the situation looks among Orbán's allies in the EU now that he has left his post. Previously, and for quite a long time, one saw tendencies of him bringing certain countries close to him, and there was a kind of emerging anti-Ukrainian coalition that almost functioned as a Trojan horse in the EU machinery for Russian interests. What is the Prime Minister's view of the situation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! My Polish colleague, Prime Minister Donald Tusk, said after the meeting that for the first time, Russia was not present at the meeting.

No, there is no anti-Ukrainian coalition; one must still be fair. People have different opinions on a lot of different issues. That is well known, and we have been able to manage that over the years. It is such that Slovakia and the Czech Republic are now replacing Hungary – not this far away, in any case.

One thing is how we achieve more unity to stand up for Ukraine in the war. Another thing is, naturally, how persistent it will be in times of tough economy. How persistent will it be when the USA quite obviously hands over more and more to Europe itself to stand for this? How persistent will it be if the energy problems we see now become a real energy crisis in the future and the economy becomes even tougher? How persistent will it be when the membership question is seriously tested?

I would not dare to paint in only rosy colors, as there are many problems remaining. But even more important is to seize the cohesion that exists. The 90 billion is an incredibly strong signal to Ukraine but also to the USA that we truly take our responsibility seriously.

It is also an enormous signal to Russia: You may sit there and spend more and more of your money for this war, but we prove that we have endurance together with Ukraine.

Great things are happening, even though it concerns decisions that we would have preferred to see made a long time ago.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is truly telling to hear that Russia was not even in the thoughts of the meeting.

Sweden is a strong voice in the EU, both for the green transition and for the support for Ukraine. In the Prime Minister's account, a look back was made to a time when the Social Democrats lacked control over their own government base. Then the Prime Minister received the rhetorical question: "How is it actually going for Ulf Kristersson?" It was not posed in as friendly a tone as I am now expressing myself with.

To boil this down to a question, I still want to link to this. How big a role does it actually play that Sweden has a stable government base when the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's ministers go down to meetings in the EU? How does it actually go for Ulf Kristersson?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was good to get that question once again! These are, however, serious matters; I must say that first because we are laughing at it.

I often say that a government that did not even get its own budget through – it did not happen once, not twice, but three times – does not have much to teach us others about economic policy, to put it bluntly. This is well known, which I do not need to say here.

But an underreported fact is that one also did not have control over the EU budget. It was no small matter. The government could have ended up in a situation where Sweden, as the only country, blocked the entire budget because the Social Democrats did not have a majority in Sweden's Riksdag. They had to come to us and ask us to help them get the budget through, and we of course gladly did so to take responsibility for Europe. But this says something about what happens when one is so eager to govern but does not have a majority for the content when one governs. I think that is a lesson for the upcoming elections.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report!

It is very good that the money for Ukraine has been secured. It is also good that there was a 20th sanctions package against Russia. An important part of that is further measures against the shadow fleet. The Swedish authorities have recently been more active and actually made several important interventions.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Due to the new sanctions package, are there further measures that Swedish authorities can take to stop the Russian shadow fleet?

There are important parts in the EU's long-term budget, and we have become wiser over the years, not least due to the serious security policy situation. It is about the need to strengthen civil society at the EU level, including when it comes to free media and culture. There is a budget item for this in the EU's budget, and given the experiences from the war in Ukraine, there is every reason to strengthen total defense at the EU level. Not so much is said about this, but I hope that the Prime Minister views this positively and works to strengthen this part of the EU's budget through, among other things, the reallocation of existing funds.

When it comes to green technology, there is much talk about how we must invest more in it and see results. It is said that China's budget for green technology is 10 percent of GDP in order to stay at the forefront. The EU cannot be worse and must take proper steps forward with a business-heavy budget for the development of green technology.

We simply cannot come on December 16 and call up some other member states, so what initiatives is the Prime Minister taking now to ensure that we can push through important investments in a strengthened civil society and green technology at the EU level?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was an interesting and impressive battery of several distinct questions in barely two minutes. Let me hold a small seminar.

No, seriously. It is very important to list more ships in the Russian shadow fleet. A systematic work is underway. The ships must be identified, and that requires many countries to do it. Then one must act as far as international law allows. One must also continue to be proactive, as we, France and several other countries have been.

A misconception is that Sweden has changed policy. That is not the case, but we have used the opportunities that have been given, above all to intervene in cases of false flag. We are therefore not abusing the law of the sea, but we are using the law of the sea in a very forward-looking way. Russia has also discovered this and has not always appreciated it.

So, regarding the combination of civil defense and civil society. When it comes to the rule of law, as it is called in English, many were with me in underlining the importance of the principles of the rule of law, not least with Hungary in mind. This must be written down in a clear way to avoid future abuse by countries that have become members. This also applies to civil defense issues. Finland's former president Sauli Niinistö has written an entire report on this for the EU, where many conclusions are drawn from Ukrainian experiences. There is often talk about military defense, while far too little is said about the importance of civil defense. But without a functioning civil defense, the military defense can never do its job.

Green technology is very important, and we are for all of this. It is good that the competition legislation is being loosened a bit so that one can create European winners who can compete globally. I am a bit afraid of the desire to pick out national winners where massive state aid is to go into just that own country's companies. I am a bit skeptical about such things.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to follow up on the question regarding the so-called bottleneck revenues. For those listening to this, it may sound very technical, but it is fundamentally about money that belongs to Swedish electricity customers and which therefore reasonably could be used to support Swedish households affected by the high energy costs. This is one of several tools that the government should be able to use in a difficult situation.

Let me remind you that when we Social Democrats were in government, we succeeded in negotiating an exception at the EU level that made it possible to use the bottleneck revenues for an electricity subsidy. This government has not succeeded in extending this exception, and when we ask questions about this here in the chamber, the Prime Minister would rather talk about what other parties are doing wrong rather than what this government is actually doing to achieve success in this issue. I think the government should focus on the actual delivery.

We who have followed this issue for a long time know that it sounds very different now compared to in March, when one spoke of a Swedish victory. We also know that Sweden stands out in these contexts, with very large bottleneck revenues that could be used instead of being accumulated.

Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister again: What is the government doing concretely so that the bottleneck revenues can be used to support Swedish households in this difficult situation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe those who have seen Ebba Busch in a rather viral video describing what Sweden does to keep the bottleneck revenues in Sweden cannot have missed the point. But some have obviously not listened or perhaps wish that it would not succeed. We fight in this issue for exactly the following reasons: The bottleneck revenues are paid by Swedish consumers, and their explicit purpose is to be used to expand network capacity so that there is no shortage in transmission capacity.

We have ensured that the idea that a large share of these revenues would go towards the grid construction of other countries does not become a reality. That was what we did while you were watching. What you managed to achieve was to secure a one-time exception to be able to repay a portion of these funds to Swedish electricity consumers. Now we have requested a broader flexibility so that these funds can be used to, for example, build new production capacity.

This is a bit technical, but since you have such a high level of tail-following on the issue, you should familiarize yourselves with how it actually works.

(Applause)

The reporting was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)